Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Abandonment of Conservative Principle
On Laura Ingraham’s website, Lifezette, Edmund Kozack laments the “Constitution worship” of those opposing the populist movement within the GOP:
The Constitution worship of those like Shapiro and Sen. Ted Cruz reveals that the mainstream conservative movement has largely forgotten the principle of imperfectability. The Constitution alone cannot guarantee some sort of political utopia. Man is fallen — a city on a shining hill cannot be guaranteed by a mere piece of paper. The fact that within a decade of the documents’ adoption the government was already trying to subvert it should be a clear indication of that reality.
Ironically, Kozack seems to have forgotten that the Constitution is based on the premise that Man is imperfect and that, therefore, his institutions of power must be restrained.
In its attempt to define conservatism in a way that dovetails its author’s nationalist populism, the piece draws heavily on Russell Kirk. And yet, he seems to forget one of Kirk’s central theses: That private property and freedom are inextricably linked. Something the current leader of the nationalist populists seems to have a problem with.
Never mind all that. Kozack’s original sin is in confusing British toryism of the Kirk/Burke variety with the more classical liberal American conservatism. It’s an important distinction that’s often glossed over.
This is what we mean when we say the nationalist populists have abandoned conservative principle: that, in rejecting classical liberalism and us “Constitution worshipers,” they reject everything that made American conservatism the unique foundation of the freest and greatest nation on this earth.
Published in General
It is a well established debaters trick to set your premises such that there is no way to lose the argument – if that is your intent then there is no purpose to further discussion.
Suffice to say that I reject your premises.
petitio principii
I have no debt, other than to God.
Apologies for auto-correct.
I like how, implicitly, this doesn’t include Laura Ingraham.
John McCain was the Republican nominee in 2008.
Good work, Mr. Lockett!
This is the scariest thing I’ve read. Without reverence for that tradition, there is no defense. The tradition is more than the written constitution and it’ s more than classical liberalism. It’s what made us a nation without a nationality, and without all of it, what we were will cease to eist.
Nah their gender has nothing to do with their turning into mean and stupid piranhas. Look at Hannity.
Congress has no soul…
Are you suggesting that someone who isn’t smart and motivated should succeed under your form of Great America? Because I think one of the things that makes America great is the fact that you have to be smart and motivated to succeed. Motivation alone will get you a living. Being smart alone will get you a job at a university. But only the smart and motivated succeed. That is by design, methinks.
Wrong. To be pro-American is to embrace American ideals as put forth in our founding documents. The blood-and-soil nationalism promoted by the Alt-Right is diametrically opposed to, “All men are created equal.”
Perhaps, if they once did, it has long since been sold.
Funny, I never heard these conversations and laments when the neocons were ascendant on the right.
You did from me.
It sounds an awful lot like the “protection from luck” that the socialist professor at the Freedom Forum put forth.
The thing is, it’s the government whose keeping the less smart but still motivated from receiving the fruits of their labor (unemployment due to regulations, minimum wage, and the like.) But much of the new Right seems to think the government should do similar interventions to give them more than what their labor is worth.
Tariffs will end up putting more people out of work, but those that are lucky enough to have a job will have it good. Much like it is now.
They are spinning tops. When the table tilts they can only wander along the path of the force of gravity which is acting upon them. They have no will or minds of their own. I loved them when they were aggravating the folks I despise. Now the table has turned. I was a sucker……was.
I never thought much of Hannity or Coulter to begin with. Ingraham and Gingrich are disappointing, though.
Depends on what you mean by smart. It is getting harder to get good paying job without being highly educated or intelligent. There are people out there that may be motivated and having a hard time finding a low-skill job that suits their aptitude.
In this, as in much else, GWB was in error. It sounded good, though.
No-controls-on-immigration-or-you-are-a-Nazi.
It sounds like nationalism in your vocabulary means protectionism. If you look at history the countries and periods with greatest gains in living standards and wealth have always come when countries and people were open to trade – while the opposite is true for countries and periods when people practiced protectionism. So while you may be concerned with middle and lower classes, your prescriptions will do more damage than good for the people you are concerned about.
If you want to know what is leading to lack of income growth and high inequality in the middle and lower classes I would suggest that you read George Gilder’s latest book The Scandal of Money.
Tom, Laura Ingraham is not enriched by her connection to or influence on government policy.
Shabby.
Huh?
I recommend that everyone read Mr. Kozak’s article in full, which you can through the helpful link provided by Jamie.
Argue with the real thing, rather than with the bowdlerized summary above.
It’s much more interesting.
I don’t recall saying that.
You quoted my comment, but you apparently didn’t read it.
Care to unpack that? I believe, I addressed the central philosophical underpinning of Mr. Kozak’s piece.
To take just one phrase out of this discussion that seems to be creating so much heat, let’s talk about “Constitution worshippers,” known in alt-right parlance (I actually read them) as “vellum fetishists.”
The Constitution is a piece of paper. It is words. Without flesh-and-blood men with the courage and power to support those words, the Constitution has all the potency of the piece of paper that Neville Chamberlain held above his head after the Munich conference.
The words in the Constitution are derived from principles, but the principles are subject to interpretation, as anyone who has lived through the last 62 years in America fully understands. (May not like, but understands.)
Jamie Lockett has one interpretation of the words in the Constitution, including those which say how it is to be amended; but “Lamie Jockett” has a different interpretation of those same words, or believes that some of the words have preeminence over others. And he has just as much right to his interpretation as Jamie does.
In fact, if “Lamie Jockett’s” preferred political candidates gain power in Washington, his interpretation of the Constitution will rule in the courts, institutions and political culture of this nation, which may mean giving non-citizens voting rights, apportioning Senators by state population or forbidding public expression of religion.
And there is nothing deference to the Constitution can do about that. It will still be there, words and principles, under glass.
I disagree, which is why I urge everyone to read the entire article by Mr. Kozak.
Let each reader decide.